Make a Donation

Subscribe to Our Feeds

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 9.0593 Thursday, 25 June 1998.
[1] From: Larry Weiss <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 24 Jun 1998 14:01:29 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 9.0575 Re: Various Hamlet Postings
[2] From: Larry Weiss <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 24 Jun 1998 15:54:51 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 9.0588 Re: Various Hamlet Postings
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Larry Weiss <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 24 Jun 1998 14:01:29 -0400
Subject: 9.0575 Re: Various Hamlet Postings
Comment: Re: SHK 9.0575 Re: Various Hamlet Postings
Laura Fargas wrote:
> Claudius' brother
> Hamlet Sr. was the Lord's anointed, and having an heir male of his body,
> Hamlet as the first son was next in the anointment line. In Richard
> III, Richard must destroy the little princes in order to have the
> appearance of legitimacy or anointedness. The same divine succession
> applies here: Claudius would have had to kill Hamlet to be the "right"
> kind. (Was there anything in the secular law of Denmark that would have
> given Claudius a legalistic, though unholy, claim to succession? Would
> Shakespeare's audience have known this law/acknowledged it as proper?)
Laura has evidently forgotten the thread we had a few months ago about
the method of selecting Danish kings. The Viking kings of Denmark did
not succeed in accordance with strict rules of primogeniture. They were
elected by an assembly called the "Witan." Shakespeare was certainly
aware of the procedure as he refers to it more than once: "popp'd in
between the election and my hopes"; "the election lights on Fortinbras,
he has my dying voice [i.e., vote]."
[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Larry Weiss <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 24 Jun 1998 15:54:51 -0400
Subject: 9.0588 Re: Various Hamlet Postings
Comment: Re: SHK 9.0588 Re: Various Hamlet Postings
Steve Urkowitz observes::
> I'm not sure what the rhetorical
> figure is called, but I've noticed that often the words "certainly,"
> "obviously," and "surely" are used when there is no evidence to
> support a claim.
Of course, he's correct.